28 September 2011 12:30 PM

In his speech at the Labour Party Conference yesterday the Shadow Culture Secretary Ivan Lewis proposed that journalists should be licensed. He thought that those "guilty of gross malpractice should be struck off."

This reference to "gross malpractice" was undefined. The law already applies to journalists along with everyone else. Journalists are not allowed to steal, or trespass, or intercept other people's phone conversations, or libel people. The idea form Lewis would appear to be that the criminal and civil sanctions of the law in these cases is not enough. That newspapers, magazines, websites, TV and radio stations, should be prohibited from using any words from these culprits again.

Presumably Lewis feels it should go further than that. One can certainly see the "gross malpractice" definition being extended beyond doing something illegal. The committee might decide to terminate a journalists career for "sensationalism" or they might decide something written was racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or against the national interest or irresponsible. Minor offenders might be given a second chance if they agreed to undertake reeducation by attending a diversity awareness course.

Share this article:

27 September 2011 12:38 PM

In his Party Conference speech today the Labour leader Ed Miliband will say he favours "wealth creators" but then denounce "predatory, asset strippers." The companies that are "bad" will, he suggests, be given some unspecified punishment.

The goodies and baddies caricature has more basis in Hollywood than in sound economics. In the film Pretty Woman, the Richard Gere character wants to take over a company making warships and use the land it occupies for housing. But then he changes his mind and agrees to help carry on making warships - this supposedly represents a transformation from baddie to goodie.

In Wall Street the Michael Douglas character buys a failing airline Blue Star to break it up and sell the viable bits. But to get across how only a baddie could do such a thing he is deceitful about this and pretends he wants to turn the company round.

Part of the wealth creation process is that there are rewards for success and risks for failure. It is about the profit motive offering a spur to the most efficient possible allocation of resources. Under real capitalism a business that is not delivering value, whether big or small, is not kept going by the taxpayer. It is allowed to fail. Asset stripping is about salvaging as much as possible out of a failed business.

Some extra regulation that was brought in to obstruct or delay the asset stripping process would be economically harmful. Supposing you had a business that owned a chain of restaurants. Some branches were making money but most were losing money. Delay in restructuring the company, selling off the unproductive parts, could result in the whole firm going bust and everyone losing their jobs. Jobs and prosperity are best delivered in a swash buckling, free wheeling market place - not an environment where urgent decisions are put on hold while a QC's opinion is awaited on whether a deal can go through.

The definition from the Labour Party of what would constitute asset stripping is something I will await with interest. What if a son takes over a family business from his father and decides to reorganise it selling off or winding down part of it and concentrating on another aspect of it. Is that asset stripping?

What if a venture capitalist buys a business and keeps more than 50% of it intact but flogs off some peripheral bits. Should he be prohibited as an asset stripper?

What if a company decides to drastically restructure on its own account selling most of it assets, without a venture capitalist coming in? Is that still asset stripping?

Private equity firms, the less pejorative term for asset strippers, used to have the approval of the Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls. In 2007 he said: 'I do not think it right to have a set of rules that disadvantage private equity companies relative to othr parts of the economy...There is no intrinsic reason to believe that they are more likely to be short-termist than any other form of ownership....Evidence does not suggest that the Government should take a particular view of one form of ownership rather than another."

Blaming the private quity firm Blackstone for the poor management of Southern Cross care homes is wide of the mark.

The British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association point out: "With regards to Southern Cross, Blackstone has not controlled the company for 5 years, since its IPO in July 2006. It is inaccurate to state or to imply that Blackstone created the Southern Cross lease structure, saddling the company with artificially high rents. With regard to statements that Blackstone had stripped property assets out of Southern Cross before its Initial Public Offering (IPO), of the 578 care homes operated by Southern Cross at the time of its IPO in 2006, approximately 95% were operated under leases entered into prior to Blackstone funds' investments. The remaining 5% were sold and leased back by Southern Cross in a transaction that occurred in 2005."

There is a shortage and lack of choice in residential care for the elderly. banning investment from private equity funds would not help.

Red Ed's attack on "asset strippers" is in reality an attack on the kind of tough business decisions being taken every hour of every day by British firms needing to compete in the modern economic climate. The rhetoric may please his audience but it does nothing to enhance his credibility as man to be trusted presiding over the British economy.

Share this article:

26 September 2011 12:37 PM

He was elected as a trade union's stooge and he will lead as the trade union's stooge. Ed Miliband has backed away from his rather modest battle with the unions over diluting their votes in future leadership contests. Then we had a policy of increasing Corporation Tax to cap tuition fees abandoned within hours.

But the Blairites have not given up in despair. They may not hold up much hope of their aspirational values being adopted by Red Ed. Nor are they doing anything much in the way of plotting to oust him. But they making an effort to keep the New Labour flame burning during these dark days for them.

A group of them have contributed essays to the Purple Book, a collection gathered by the Progress pressure group. Five shadow cabinet ministers - Douglas Alexander, Liam Byrne, Caroline Flint, Tessa Jowell and Ivan Lewis - also pitched up to address a Progress Rally on the fringe of the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool.

“People are much more sceptical, much more hostile to the idea of the state spending their money on their behalf,” declared Tessa Jowell. The problem was that the Blair years saw the rhetoric about changed not matched by the reality of policy. The tough policy on welfare scroungers never happened. The restoration of rigorous standards in education was not implemented. Public service reform was botched. The reality was the more familiar socialist territory of tax and spend, more bureuacracy and increased union power.

Yet reading the essays in the Purple Book I have come to the conclusion that the sentiments are sincere. Sure there is plenty of waffle and gimmicky. It is easy to mock the "veteran modernisers". But coming through was the idea that greater equality could better be achieved by widening opportunity for those who don't have - not by narrowing it for those who do. Once that principle is adopted then Socialism as it has traditionally been understood is abandoned.

Alan Milburn not only backed free schools but education vouchers - so that parental choice could be affordable for the many and not just the few. "The old top-down agenda has run its course," he says. "

He adds: "Both parent-run schools and the pupil premium, if implemented well, could make a big difference. But while they empower parents collectively, they do not empower parents individually. Neither policy gives the poorer parent a right that is readily available to the wealthier parent: the right of exit ,the ability to take their child out of a poorly performing school and into a better one," he says. "None of the political parties have been prepared to grasp this nettle. It is time they did."

The TV historian and Labour MP Tristram Hunt writes: Tristram Hunt in his contribution for instance. "There is nothing progressive about running a large budget deficit or wasting money on interest repayments that could be invested in schools, hospitals or Sure Start centres. This is the crucial insight the electorate has already realised and until we move beyond the ‘why’ and ‘who’ arguments about deficit reduction, and articulate with more clarity the ‘how’, we will not regain our voice."

Frank Field is a Labour MP but he is serious about wanting the growth of welfare dependency to be reversed. He says: "We have, in effect, created a class of dependents, as addicted as anyone on crack cocaine. The change has meant that not all claimants see work as their ultimate goal:too often they balance their extra income against the required effort and judge the rewards insufficient."

The Shadow Communities secretary Caroline Flint used her essay to proase wider home ownership. Yet her Shadow Cabinet colleague the former Labour Housing Minister John Healey had welcomed a fall in home ownership on his watch.

In local government we can see that the split in Labour thinking is relevant now. Some Labour councils are changing their policy on housing allocation. Flint writes in the Purple Book of "prospective tenants forced to clear ever higher test of need, creating estates characterised by a vicious cycle of worklessness and deprivation and neighbourhood scarred by narrow horizons and low ambitions."

She says this must be reversed and commends Newham Council for "looking to prioritise those in employment in their allocations policy." Also Manchester where the priority is determined by "community connection" - not just living and working locally but also those who have been involved with local voluntary activity for at least six months or who provide jobs or services for local people.

Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Liam Byrne, in his contribution to the Purple Book, also backed these councils and wrote: "In essence your place in the queue is affected by whether you are doing the right thing, getting a job, paying taxes, being a good tenants and neighbour and so on." Yet another Labour MP Karen Buck, the Shadow Work and Pensions Minister takes the opposite view.

Much of this wrangling can take place safely below the media radar. Under Ed Miliband the Purple Book thinks will be spurned. But once he has gone whoever takes over might revive it. That would be a challenge for the Conservative Party but good news for the country.

Share this article:

21 September 2011 12:23 PM

Basildon Council along with other local authorities has been having the most struggle coping with illegal traveller sites. After a decade legal delaying tactics around 20 families have now moved - to another illegal site 55 miles away near Luton. The mockery of the law appears to continue just as before. Basildon's solution is Luton's problem. The enforcement of the law being such a slow and frustrating process to be ineffective.

But there is some cause for hope. The big idea of this Government is "localism." If that means anything it means giving councils more power to deal with just this type of problem.

Localism is something that both coalition partners sign up. the Labour cabinet minister Lord Jay once said that "in the case of nutrition and health, just as in the case of education, the gentleman in Whitehall really does know better what is good for people than the people know themselves." This became summarised as the view that the man in Whitehall knows best. BY contrast localism is a philosophy summarised as : "Trust the people."

For local councils it means less power in some respects - for instance more schools becoming academies or free schools being set up that operate independently of the Town Hall bureaucracy. But in other ways it means more power for councils - for instance in decisions on planning applications.

If localism means anything it should certainly mean that elected councillors have the power to decide whether or not to allow gypsy camps in their districts. There will always be a limit to this power while the Government remain committed to the Human Rights Act and sadly this is an area where the Lib Dems demand this commitment should be retained.

Share this article:

20 September 2011 12:39 PM

The sinister sounding UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies has produced a report calling for the extension of film censorship. It demands an 18 Certificate for any film where smoking is portrayed. The basis for this demand is a survey asking young people whether they smoke or not and which films they have seen.

It concludes: "The link between smoking in movies and adolescent smoking is robust and transcends different cultural contexts. Limiting young people’s exposure to movie smoking could have important public health implications." It says there is a a well-documented association between exposure to movie smoking and trying smoking among the youth in the USA and Germany."

Youngsters from various countries, including the UK, were given a list of films and asked to tick which they had seen and how often. Meanwhile "trained coders review each movie and count the number of occurrences of onscreen tobacco. A tobacco occurrence is counted whenever a major or minor character handles or uses tobacco in a scene or when tobacco use is depicted in the background (eg ‘extras’ smoking in a bar scene). Occurrences are counted each time the tobacco use appears on the screen."

Reading the research there didn't seem to be any effort to distingush between cause and effect. What if those who smoke tended to prefer going to films where smoking was portrayed? The evidence seems pretty shaky.

There is also no thought put into whether showing someone smoking would be likely to encourage such behaviour. This proposal would "protect" 17-year-olds from the danger of watching such films as the Disney classic 101 Dalmatians. But is Cruella de Vil's puffing on her cigarette holder amidst much evil cackling really going to encourage us to light up? Does Bridget Jones desperately lighting up another cigarette make us feel this is chic stylish behaviour we wish to emulate?

Thankfully a Department of Culture, Sports and Media spokesman has already made clear the Government will give this madness a miss. A spokesman said: "The Government believes the current arrangements provide sufficient control on the depiction of smoking in films and a total ban would be a disproportionate interference. This action would undermine the credibility, and therefore the quality, of domestically produced films."

But this is not just about whether or not public health could be improved of the quality of film making impeded. This is about liberty and truth. When images of Churchill or Brunel smoking are airbrushed there is an instinctive revulsion that evidence should be falsified in our country.

I don't smoke and I prefer it if others don't. But thought control is the wrong way to pursue tobacco control.

Share this article:

19 September 2011 12:11 PM

A year ago the Lib Dem conference faced some rebellions against Government policy but the message from Lib Dem Ministers was strong and unapologetic. "Some say we shouldn’t have gone into government at a time when spending had to be cut," said the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg a year ago. "We should have let the Conservatives take the blame. Waited on the sidelines, ready to reap the political rewards." He made it apparent that was not his view. Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem MP and Chief Secretary to the Treasury reminded the conference: "The cuts are our cuts too."

There was collective responsibility among Ministers whether Lib Dem or Conservative for the policies in Coalition Agreement. A year on and the Lib Dems are in a less heroic place. They haven't pulled out of the coalition and I doubt they will. Their poll ratings hardly make bringing down the Government to force an early election an attractive prospect. Yet neither are they getting stuck in defending the Government.

For instance free schools could well prove one of the Government's big success stories. There might well be rather a lot of them up and running in four years time doing pretty well and proving highly popular.

Share this article:

14 September 2011 3:24 PM

This morning came the news that unemployment in the three months up to July has risen by 80,000. It is now at 2.51 million. What is to be done about it? One approach is to look at the economics. What are the barriers to job creation? How can the Government get out of the way of those wishing too start up and expand business?

There is certainly considerable potential for the Government to do a lot more so far as this is concerned. But there would be a requirement for political boldness to have proper spending cuts to make room for some tax cuts. Also for a willingness to defy the trade unions and the European Union in removing the fear to recruit. Businessman are worried that if they take someone on and it doesn't work out that the costs and hassle of getting rid of them would be too high. So they prefer to coast along rather than expand. Allowing that mentality to exist among our entrepreneurs is a betrayal of those 2,510,000 of our citizens without jobs. Yet it is not the entrepreneurs (and potential entrepreneurs) to blame - it is the Government to blame for holding them back.

But there is another aspect of this, aside from the economics. Supposing we made it attractive for business to recruit. What is the prospect that those they take on will be able to prove their worth? To add profit to the enterprise?

Share this article:

13 September 2011 12:58 PM

Never has a Labour leader owed his job to the trade unions to a greater extent than Ed Miliband. Michael Foot and the previous Labour leaders were elected by the Labour MPs. In the subsequent leadership contests where Neil Kinnock defeated Roy Hattersley, John Smith defeated Bryan Gould and Tony Blair defeated John Prescott the trade unions had a chunk of votes - but in each case the victor was not dependent on them. Then Gordon Brown, of course, was elected unopposed.

But Ed Miliband relied on union votes. They were key. They put him ahead of his brother who had the support of the MPs and party members in the leadership contest. Since Red Ed's election donations to the Labour Party have overwhelmingly come from the unions. So far as the unions are concerned, Ed Miliband is bought and paid for.

This made it all the important for him to bring in a genuine change. To have ended the cash for votes arrangement his Party has with the unions and to instead have been able to proclaim that Labour was concerned to operate in the interests of the nation as a whole.

This would mean, for instance, determining policy on public services primarily in the interests of the people who use them rather than who work for them. It would mean representing the interests of the unemployed, whose hopes rely on business creating new jobs - rather than always agreeing to unions demands for extra "rights" for existing employees which discourage employers from recruiting new staff.

Ending the trade unions cash for votes deal should mean not just that the unions lose their votes in future Labour leadership elections but also that they lose that they lose their specially reserved places on selection committees for Labour candidates for council and Parliamentary elections. The practice of "sponsored" MPs should end and they should cease to have votes at the Conference deciding Labour Party policy. Trade unions hold 50% of the votes at the Labour Party conference - furthermore 40% of those votes are wielded by the three largest trade unions - Unite, GMB, UNISON. In 2011 the union barons are still swanking and swaggering around.

The Labour Party should also agree that it was wrong of the Labour Government to offer the unions financial kick backs via the taxpayer (for instance the Union Modernisation Fund.)

Ending union cash for votes could have been Ed Miliband's Clause 4 moment. Sure the Party finances would have taken a hit in terms of union donations (although some unions might well think it was still worth donating even without special favours.) There might have been less money for spin doctors and poster sites. Yet the message that Labour was not seeking to Govern in the interests of all rather than a sectional interest group would have resonated. Their leader would have proved himself to be brave.

Instead he has funked it. "I value the link between the trade union movement and the Labour Party," Ed Miliband said in his speech to the TUC this morning, It is why I will resist any attempt to break it."

He then tickled their tummies with the following: "Some companies already have workers on the committee that decides top pay. I say, every company should have an employee on their remuneration committee, so the right pay is set and it is justified." If a company is paying its executives more than justified than it is not maximising its profits - that is something the shareholders will want to do something about - it is not the business of the state or the unions to meddle.

The trade unions are often led by well paid extremists seeking to damage the economy and disrupt the lives of the general public with politically motivated strikes. Red Ed will inevitably be associated with them while the union/Labour link remains. Breaking it would have been bold and right. It would been a startling way to have defied expectations. But he has ducked that challenge. Instead he has cravenly promised the comrades it will continue. It is an abdication of leadership.

Share this article:

12 September 2011 3:09 PM

The Government are proposing to make the planning process less bureaucratic. Requirements from Whitehall are being cut from over a thousand pages to 52 in a draft National Planning Policy Framework. Certainly that is good news for property developers for whom the red tape costs a fortune and causes excruciating delay. But that doesn't mean that the streamlining of planning rules is bad for the rest of us. There is a desperate shortage of housing and restoring the economy to robust economic growth is a national imperative. So development is needed but it doesn't need to ugly.

The key safeguards can still be included in 52 pages. Contrary to scaremongering from some environmental lobby groups they have been. The Green Belt is protected also areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Listed buildings, archaeological sites, ancient woodland and civic conservation areas are all still protected. It is true that the Government's draft says there should be a "presumption" in favour of development but this has been the policy since the Second World War and there is the rather relevant proviso that any development must be sustainable.

Indeed in important respects protection against bad development is strengthened. Local councils will have more power to turn down schemes they dislike rather than impotent planning committees of local councillors being obliged to rubber stamp the in deference to some housing target or "Regional Spatial Strategy." Councils will have a incentive to allow more houses to be built will be built rather than it being a requirement to hit some Stalinist target from Whitehall. So their will be a local interest in allowing development but flexibility in ensuring it is the right type in the right place. Councillors who fail to deliver what their communities want will no longer have an alibi. There is more accountability.

Another improvement is the stress placed on good design. This is something the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment welcomes and they will have more opportunity to champion neo-classical design as an alternative to modernist prejudices that prevail among most architects and planning officers with their strange enthusiasm for hideous concrete blocks.

The Chief Executive of The Prince's Foundation, Hank Dittmar tells me: "We support the NPPF's drive to simplify planning, to increase community engagement and support sustainable development. Our comments, which are those of an independent charity, will suggest ways that the NPPF can balance the need for housing and growth with the protection of countryside, local character and beauty. The Prince’s Foundation endorses the principle of Neighbourhood Planning at the heart of this new guidance, and its prominent role in emergent national policy. It is heartening to see so many communities coming forward to participate. We are pleased to be able to help community groups around the country to develop their own visions for growth, preservation and improvement."

Groups such as the National Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England risk their own reputations by getting embroiled in hypocritical, dishonest and politically motivated attacks on the Government. "Planning is for people not profit," declares the National Trust like some demented Marxist agitprop outfit. Yet they don't seem to be quite so anti development when it comes to lucrative schemes on their own land - such as the (ugly) Stamford Brook housing scheme in Altrincham in Cheshire or in Buckinghamshire and North Wales where "rode roughshod" over local opinion to push through development. Then we have the CPRE, whose Chief Executive is Shaun Spiers, a former Labour Euro MP, and which has bizarrely condemned Government measures to stop "garden grabbing."

Good development is not a threat to rural life. It could help keep it viable. It could help a village pub, Post Office or shop to survive. But the buildings must be attractive. They need to be in harmony with their surroundings, to respect nature and use local materials. Attractive buildings are usually more profitable than ugly ones. Of course if we are going to have development then developers will need to make a profit - unless we became Communist. It is not profit itself which is the problem. It is that the rules have been loaded in a way that only the big firms can cope with the red tape and they are steered towards brutalism rather than beauty. This new approach is good for growth, good for profits - and also good for the countryside.